|
|
Posted by Martin Heffels on 10/05/62 11:38
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:49:14 GMT, "David McCall" <david.mccall@comcast.net>
wrote:
>Sony's high end offerings are not compressed very much,
>but Panasonic's offerings DVCam-100HD and DVCam-50HD
>ARE heavily compressed. Do any of these count?
Compression has nothing to do with determining whether something is HD or
not. The amount of pixels which are being recorded, and shown in the end,
determine this: 1920x1080 or 1440x720, 24, 25, 30 or 60 fps interlaced or
progressive.
>I'd have
>to look it up, or you can, but I think you will find that there are
>few formats that actually that actually meet or exceed the spec
>for HD all of the way from the chips to the tape (or P2 card).
That's right. Some recorders squeeze the data down to 1440 pixels
horizontal to make it smaller to be able to record it, but blow it up to
1920 again. This is compression, and has nothing to do with determining
whether it is HD or not.
>To me, they are all just digital formats of varying resolution and quality.
>Sure, an HDV camera is far inferior to a Cinealta, but it is superior
>to what you get on cable or sat TV that the marketing people call HD.
HDV means HD on mini-DV. HD heavily compressed to fit in a datarate which
can be recorded on a mini-DV tape. It is compressed, but still HD.
>If people can get away with bumping DV to 35mm and calling it
>film, I think this argument will be mute within the next year or so.
Hmmm, don't forget that in the mean time the uprezzing software has been
improved tremendously. The top software can double the amount of lines via
clever mathematics, and by that alone make it look like a higher
resolution. Recording this on film now, will look much better than what it
did 8 years ago.
cheers
-martin-
--
Never be afraid to try something new.
Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark.
A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|